Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reports rising intakes, warns EEOC policy change removes credits for gender‑identity cases
Summary
Commission staff told the June 2 meeting that intakes and pending cases have increased and reported an EEOC memo that will bar credit for gender‑identity/transgender cases retroactive to Jan. 20; staff also said EEOC is no longer accepting disparate‑impact credits.
Pittsburgh — At its June 2 meeting, staff for the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (CHR) reported increased complaint intake and changes in federal enforcement policy that could reduce the commission’s federal reimbursement for some cases.
Rachel (staff member) told commissioners CHR had 36 open investigations and 48 pending intakes as of May; the commission also had 13 cases awaiting responses from respondents, eight pending mandatory conciliations, four housing cases “in port,” one case on the public‑hearing track and two other matters in settlement. Rachel said those intake numbers reflect a higher volume of inquiries requiring staff time to draft complaints and to dual‑file with federal agencies.
Why it matters: Several CHR cases are processed for federal credit and reimbursement; changes in federal acceptance criteria can reduce payments that support local enforcement work. Rachel said HUD case processing for the year should result in about $64,800 in reimbursement, “give or take,” based on current closures.
Rachel reported receipt of an EEOC memo that will bar credits for cases involving gender identity or transgender status and that the policy change will be applied retroactively to Jan. 20. “They are doing this retroactively back to January 20,” she said. She also said the EEOC announced it would no longer accept disparate‑impact cases for credits. Rachel said the commission will continue to investigate such complaints but that the agency will not receive federal credit for affected matters.
Commissioners asked whether legal action against the administration on the retroactivity was possible; Rachel said she has scheduled a meeting with the commission’s solicitor to discuss options. Rachel also described turnover and capacity issues at the county human relations commission and said the county is in the process of securing work‑sharing agreements and signatures needed to hire staff; CHR staff said it may help train county hires but that the county will not immediately be able to shoulder the current caseload.
Staff emphasized the operational impacts: higher intake volumes have caused the commission to exceed contract amounts for some services and have increased the need for staff time dedicated to intake, complaint drafting and training new personnel from partner agencies.
Ending: Commissioners were informed about the federal policy changes and staff said they will follow up with the solicitor and provide more information about financial and operational implications in future reports.
